Physics processing vs Dx10.1

BravO)))

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
6,399
Does anyone here see the bs between the two. I have to admit that they are both great ideas, but that is it... only an idea. When games start to utilize these features, then I will start thinking about it when upgrading. Support for these two features are few and far between and should not be brought up when talking about video cards for the time being. As for Nvidia vs Ati subject, it comes down to p/p, but also some other veriables such as: are you going to run a multigpu setup (if no nvidia, if yes ati {except for the 4870x2}), who has better chipsets, who has better support from their vendors. These are some of the things to look at... not physics processing or dx 10.1.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,900
I look at the system requirements for a game to see what is needed to run it.
Why are you so annoyed that DX10.1 and hardware Physics have emerged?
 

Anarchist4000

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 10, 2001
Messages
1,659
Hardware physics is likely still a ways off. DX10.1 however does add some meaningful features so I'd still say it's relevant even though we haven't seen many examples yet. Real hardware physics probably won't show up until DX11 is out so I'm not even sure it's worth considering.
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,434
PhysX will actually add something noticeable to the game.

You won't be able to notice, as much as the difference with PhysX, as the difference between DX 10 and DX 10.1

There are probably a similar amount of games that support DX 10.1 as their are PhysX.
 

Anarchist4000

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 10, 2001
Messages
1,659
The problem with PhysX though is that it will end up competing with HAVOC (Intel) in addition to DX11 when it releases. It will likely end up being one of those novelty features that is never really used.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,900
You mean like ATI vs NVidia?
It hasnt harmed us so far and until hardware Physics starts being used, we dont have it.
 

BravO)))

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
6,399
All that I am saying is that right now these features are nothing more than gemics. I am tired of seeing to many people trying to 1up everyone when trying to ask for advice about video cards. Nvidia's side stats you should go with nvidia because of physx (not much support from games at the time) and ati's side says you should go with ati because of dx10.1 (not much support for this feature either). So why is everyone trying to use these features as selling points when they are not even being used right now. These features will be great down the road, but I don't see very much support for them for a while.

No, It's not Ati vs nvidia... It's about marketing bs that has nothing to do with what is going on right now. It's like trying to sell a bed, that comes with a life time supply of depends, to a guy in his 30's.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,900
Thats like us knowing that gfx cards are coming out that will require a bigger PSU.
Would you prefer that no mention of this be made when you are buying a new PSU?
Ignorance is not bliss.

Overhype is another thing but knowledge is power.
You have no idea how useful PhysX or Havoc will become, so its a bit premature to bash them.
 

BravO)))

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
6,399
Thats like us knowing that gfx cards are coming out that will require a bigger PSU.
Would you prefer that no mention of this be made when you are buying a new PSU?
Ignorance is not bliss.

Overhype is another thing but knowledge is power.
You have no idea how useful PhysX or Havoc will become, so its a bit premature to bash them.

I don't want anyone thinking that I am trying to troll, I just want to know why people think so highly of these features that have basically no support. I would like to know a head of time, but I don't want something I don't need as of now to be shoved down my mouth. I have an idea of how useful it will be... Just I don't want people telling others how usefull it is now with no clue of the support for it. Does anyone have any names of the games that utilize these features such as: AC which supported 10.1 until that took it out. Myself am looking foward to the support of these games, but right now it is only talk.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,900
Its not that there is no support, there are a few games and Apps that use PhysX and quite a few tech demos.
Havok has been used for some time as it runs off the CPU.

The problem so far is there isnt enough support for hardware Physics but it hasnt been that long since NVidia bought AGEIA so the fruits are coming.

So who is shoving this down your mouth?
You seem like you know enough to make the decision for yourself.
 

BravO)))

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
6,399
No one is shoving it down my mouth, it is just a lot of people on here that are giving advice to other people about cards are using this as a main selling point to those who need a card to do what they want, not what it can do in the future.

I am just wondering why people are trying to make it sound like they "need" these cards for something that is hardly being used as of now. I would like to see people be honest with each other, and when I see people trying to trick people into buying a video card just for a feature (phsyx or dx10.1) that is hardly used and not based on the performance, someone needs to educate some of these people that the games out really don't need these features. As of now, fps and image quality is the most important thing when it comes to video cards... Maybe later that will change.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,900
I havent seen anyone claiming you should only buy a card that runs PhysX.
Its worth considering if you cant make your mind up between an NVidia/ATI card but hardly a dealbreaker.
Especially as ATI cards have been demonstrated running PhysX with a little 3rd party code to translate function calls.
(granted the ATI support isnt from ATI but it works none the less)

I dont understand your rant, pls give some evidence if you would like to discuss it.
 

BravO)))

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
6,399
One of the post.

I would take a 260/280 over the 4870 because of the PhysX support. I'm positive ATI will be getting the support, but Nvidia has it now.

I have seen plenty on this forum. That is why I started the topic. The guy is asking for video card advice, and they keep talking about getting something over something because of a feature (that is not even being utilized).
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,900
PhysX games are here and more are coming.
Is there something wrong with that?
 

BravO)))

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
6,399
That is what I was asking earlier. Please name some of the titles.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,900
I dont recall you asking anything, you started off by spouting how no one should consider PhysX when buying a graphics card.
You had already made your mind up that PhysX isnt being used and is not worth factoring into "our" purchasing decisions.
So far you have been thoroughly resistant to the facts.

2 Games I have played with PhysX are Unreal Tournament 3 and Crazy Machines II.
I have more games that support it but played them before I got PhysX support.
Also the PhysX in most of them doesn't help much, it was early days.

This is the NVidia (AGEIA) list of Hardware enabled PhysX games (Google cached link)
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...physxgames_home.html&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk
Direct link if it works for you
http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_physxgames_home.html

This is the Unofficial PhysX Links & Info Page if you want to try anything.
http://personal.inet.fi/atk/kjh2348fs/physx.html
 

Bdbtoys

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
250
Here is a partial list of some of the games... http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1141844

My favorite PhysX games were Infernal (best sleeper hit of last year IMO) and UT3.

I also see relavance in the thread BravO)) posted as well... because of the topics in general.

As far as my quote that BravO)) posted... That is my opinion of why I would choose one over the other. (It is the feature one has and the other doesn't)

I have been using a dedicated PhysX card for some time now. Nvidia basically just gave away a free card to everyone with an 8 series and higher. I tried out PhysX titles again with the 8800GTX (as GPU+PPU) and it works better overall than the dedicated card did.

It's an awesome technology and I personally can't see why anyone would cut it down after playing some games that took advantage of it. It has a "gimmick" factor on several games, but other games truly become better with proper implementation.

So as far as the original question goes... DX10.1 vs. Physics... I'll take Physics anyday.
 

Bdbtoys

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
250
no problem...

I remembered that thread from a while back and resurrected it because people seem to think there are only 2 games + tech demos that used the PPU. Granted the list also contains software PhysX as well, but they are noted.
 

JimmiG

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
2,429
The difference is that DX10.1 requires hardware support while PhysX is a matter of licensing. So the GTX200 will never have DX 10.1, but if GPU-accelerated physics becomes big enough, ATI will adopt it either by pusing their own API or just licensing PhysX.
 

BravO)))

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
6,399
Ok... Is anyone in here able to spot the difference between a software rendered game and a hardware rendered game. The pepsi challenge is what I would like to see. As of right know, that thread might say that these titles support physics processing, but it is only to a small degree. Right know most engines still run the same way they have ran for years... software rendered. All that they are doing now is taking that from the cpu and putting it on the vga. Does anyone have a video of a pepsi challenge between the two cards with and without hardware rendered physics.
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
PhysX will actually add something noticeable to the game.

You won't be able to notice, as much as the difference with PhysX, as the difference between DX 10 and DX 10.1

I fully agree. DX10.1 is only an incremental step, with very predictable results. Games using DX10.1 will run a smidge faster than with DX10 and/or look just a smidge better.
But if you read about people playing Crysis or BioShock in DX9 and DX10 mode and barely being able to tell the difference... DX10 to DX10.1 is an even smaller step.
So you already know exactly what you'll be missing out on, choosing a card without DX10.1 support is a calculated risk.

PhysX on the other hand, that's taking a gamble. We've seen from the tech demos and game patches so far that PhysX can make quite a huge difference in the amount of physics that can be processed in a game, making realistic hair, cloth and fluid effects a possibility.
But what we don't know is if future games will take advantage of this technology, and to what extent. You could be missing out on nothing... or you'll be missing out of some of the coolest game effects in years, only able to run the game at 'low physics' setting, where a lot less stuff is destructable, and a lot less objects/characters are animated realistically etc.

Luckily I didn't have to decide :)
I chose to go with nVidia before DX10.1 and PhysX were an item, and I got PhysX for free down the line... and so far I'm not missing DX10.1 anyway.
I hope I can just hold out long enough to get a better idea of the situation... But the PhysX demos I've tried on my 8800 were impressive enough to consider sticking with nVidia for the next card I buy. If PhysX takes off, I'd like to be ready... and currently I am.
 

AmongTheChosenX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2007
Messages
6,997
DX10.1 isn't going to get any better because DX11 is coming out soon, right?
so might as well get the best you can right now. which i'd say is physix.

but the 4850 crossfire still pwns everything
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
Ok... Is anyone in here able to spot the difference between a software rendered game and a hardware rendered game. The pepsi challenge is what I would like to see. As of right know, that thread might say that these titles support physics processing, but it is only to a small degree. Right know most engines still run the same way they have ran for years... software rendered. All that they are doing now is taking that from the cpu and putting it on the vga. Does anyone have a video of a pepsi challenge between the two cards with and without hardware rendered physics.

Actually, I think the future is in different detail levels for physics. Some games already have two or more levels of physics.
Especially in Crysis, the difference between low physics and high or very high is really telling.
And the physics in Crysis are still quite coarse, even at very high. Eg, you can blow up a hut, but the roof and walls will always break into the same few square pieces (and at lower settings, some things just don't blow up at all).
With hardware accelerated physics, you'll see the same thing, the destruction will be more detailed, and I'm quite sure you'll be able to notice it... because Crysis currently has the most detailed CPU physics of any game as far as I know, and it's still quite easy to spot how coarse they are, so plenty of room for improvement.
 

Bdbtoys

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
250
Ok... Is anyone in here able to spot the difference between a software rendered game and a hardware rendered game. The pepsi challenge is what I would like to see. As of right know, that thread might say that these titles support physics processing, but it is only to a small degree. Right know most engines still run the same way they have ran for years... software rendered. All that they are doing now is taking that from the cpu and putting it on the vga. Does anyone have a video of a pepsi challenge between the two cards with and without hardware rendered physics.

Yes... Night and Day difference. Infernal & UT3 are good examples on physics done right.

As far as videos goes...I do not have one that I can post (too big). But there were a bunch of them on the ageia site before Nvidia took over. Maybe you can find someone that mirrored them.

Also... I want to point out that I don't really care which hardware physics API wins (DirectX vs. PhysX vs. Havok?) as long as we get a standard in the end that works.
 

BravO)))

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
6,399
BdBtoys, you are right. They need to set a standard if they are going to do this the right way. No more of that compatibility issue bullshit. Has any of the companies put in effort into making the pcga work yet, or was that all for pr.
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
Well, you COULD run UT3 with the enhanced physics on CPU, problem is just that even the fastest quadcores of today aren't fast enough to get decent framerates.
PPU and GPU work just fine however.
 

BravO)))

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
6,399
I dont recall you asking anything, you started off by spouting how no one should consider PhysX when buying a graphics card.
You had already made your mind up that PhysX isnt being used and is not worth factoring into "our" purchasing decisions.
So far you have been thoroughly resistant to the facts.

Does anyone have any names of the games that utilize these features.

Sorry if I came off as being a dick.
 

HighTest

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,245
what about DX11 AND PhysX?!

now thats genius! :p

Both will likely "provide" it. It's already been shown that using PhysX with ATI hardware isn't as hard as one would think: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-physx-ati,5764.html

http://gizmodo.com/5020413/ati-rade...ing-nvidia-physx-are-faster-stronger-awesomer

nVIDIA also offers PhysX support to ATI:

http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/602205/nvidia-offers-physx-support-to-amd--ati.html

So now it's really just a matter of awaiting DirectX 11. :)
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
Both will likely "provide" it. It's already been shown that using PhysX with ATI hardware isn't as hard as one would think: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-physx-ati,5764.html

http://gizmodo.com/5020413/ati-rade...ing-nvidia-physx-are-faster-stronger-awesomer

That was a hoax.
It was never officially released, and we were supposed to have an update on August 20th.
Nothing happened, and threads at the NGOHQ forum asking for a status update got closed or deleted.
Turns out that PhysX on ATi *is* as hard as one would think ;)
 

HighTest

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 17, 2005
Messages
1,245
That was a hoax.
It was never officially released, and we were supposed to have an update on August 20th.
Nothing happened, and threads at the NGOHQ forum asking for a status update got closed or deleted.
Turns out that PhysX on ATi *is* as hard as one would think ;)

D*mn! :mad: Well, at least nVIDIA still promises to allow the development for PhysX on other GPU's. Guess it'll just be a while longer yet then.
 

Scali2

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,845
D*mn! :mad: Well, at least nVIDIA still promises to allow the development for PhysX on other GPU's. Guess it'll just be a while longer yet then.

I don't think a proper PhysX implementation will ever emerge unless AMD itself gets behind it and puts a team of professional developers on it for a few monts.
It took nVidia about half a year to get PhysX working on Cuda after they bought Ageia.

And the problem is that AMD is not interested. They've put their money on Havok.
 
Top